NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

 NEW EVIDENCE:  Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

SYNOPSIS:

1) In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795  which indicate that the reason  the reference to natural born citizen (NBC),  included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country  were to become natural born citizens.  Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents.  On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced McElwee’s unpublished article, “Natural Born Citizen” (pg 10), on the House floor, to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Until recently, the import of this evidence has been largely unrecognized.

2) If they were not intending to make them natural born citizens, as McElwee’s evidence from the 1795 House Commitee notes indicates, THEN the founders were using the reference to NBC in the original 1790 Naturalization Act in some other way than to actually confer NBC status.   That other intended use involves  the reference to “natural born citizen” being employed as “SIMILIE: (comparing two unlike things or conditions) in order to argue for the  mere citizenship of those born overseas,  and  NOT to confer Natural born citizen status upon them.  This is an antiquated rhetorical device more commonly employed in the 18th Century in order to present a sort of pro forma argument, in this case, for the mere citizenship of those born overseas.

3)  Some  have argued that the terms of the Constitution might be altered merely by Congressional legislation, rather than an Article V amendment,  with this intention being particularly applied to the term of art “Natural Born Citizen” utilized only in Article II, thereby enabling Congress to change the requirement for President at its whim, such as:

  • Matthew Spalding Ph.D.,  formerly the Vice President of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, and currently  Dean of Educational Programs at Hillsdale College, who appeared before a 2004  Senate Judiciary Committee hearing  (page  19) held for the purpose of expanding the original meaning of “natural born citizen” to make the office of President more inclusive,  even to include naturalized persons,   and those born to parents overseas in service of the military, and other things.  Spalding specifically testified that the 1790 Naturalization Act’s reference to natural born citizen “clearly” (in his biased opinion) shows that the Founders viewed it was within Congress’ authority to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”.  Spalding even closed by disclosing his own personal bias, referencing his adoption of two Russian orphans, whom he described being “as natural born citizens.”    We should instinctively recognize this argument as false due to the fact that natural born citizen status has nothing to do with any sort of naturalization, and does not fall under that authority of Congress.    We can now recognize Spalding’s entire argument referencing the 1790 Naturalization Act as establishing precedent for Congress to alter the terms of the Constitution by mere legislation, as entirely false and corrupt.

Both Matthew Spalding and Jack Maskell, allegedly American history scholars,  each conspicuously failed to address the fact that the 1795 Naturalization Act entirely repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, and was a near-verbatim repeat of that Act, except entirely removing the reference to “natural born citizen”.   The failure to address this conflict with their arguments strongly indicates an agenda in disregard of fact.

  • Numerous legislation attempts to redefine “natural born citizen” by statute or amendment, including but not limited to Senate Bill  S. 2678, “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act”, which intended to modify the meaning “natural born citizen” by inappropriate means, when the phrase is a term of art from Natural Law, which is by definition outside of man-made Positive Law, and entirely beyond the reach of such statutory manipulation.

The evidence indicates these approaches to altering the Constitution are entirely invalid. 1790 Naturalization Act – “Considered As” That 1790 Naturalization Act, this country’s very first act of naturalization,  indicates:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens .,,”

Many have believed the phrasing “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” was intending to confer natural born citizen status upon those born overseas. However new information has surfaced indicating this to not be the case. In 1789, only a year before the 1790 Act,  James Madison made a similar reference addressing natural born, also employing the same phrasing “considered as.”  Many employ this Madison reference similarly to the 1790 Naturalization Act,  to argue against the two citizen-parent terms:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens”

Madison, 1789

In this address Madison references the children of aliens born on American soil, as being “considered as” natural born .  I believe this reference is not actually intending to confer on those alien children “natural born” status, nor even recognize them as just “citizens”, but rather was Madison’s indication these alien children born on U.S. soil are entitled to fundamental rights,  i.e.  property, due process, etc. Many assume that these two references to “natural born” represent the deliberate expansion of the terms for natural born citizen, but evidence exists showing such interpretations to not actually be the case. THE EVIDENCE: Only 5 years after that 1790 Naturalization Act, Congress specifically repealed that Act, replacing it with the 1795 Naturalization Act, which was a nearly verbatim repeat of the previous 1790 Act, except without any reference to natural born citizen whatsover.  Many “authorities” conspicuously overlook reference to this 1795 Act’s specific and deliberate repeal of that 1790 Act.

What if the 1790 reference to “natural born citizen” is not actually an expansion of the terms at all? And what explains the abrupt removal of that language in 1795, never to have it appear again in any naturalization law over the course of this country’s history? Perhaps these two concerns are linked. On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced an unpublished article to the U.S. House of Representatives. The unpublished article was written by Pinckney G. McElwee, titled “Natural Born Citizen”.    In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

(McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, 1967, Page 10)

Again recollect that the previous Madison 1789 quotation and the 1790 Naturalization Act both use the exact same phrasing of   “considered as natural born” (citizens/subjects).   By McElwee’s own report, Madison was involved in having the “natural born citizen” reference in the 1790 Naturalization Act, entirely removed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, so that the reference would not be misunderstood.   Given the similar phrasing in the quotation, perhaps Madison was even influential in drafting that 1790 Naturalization Act. What “Considered As” Actually Intends

Rather than any actual intent to expand the terms of “natural born” by statutory means, which is now known to be untrue given McElwee’s reference,  these writings are actually using an archaic rhetorical device, no longer employed. The 1790 Naturalization Act’s use of “considered as”, and Madison’s 1789 quote as well, are actually employing SIMILE, comparing two inherently unlike things, to argue for the citizenship of offspring not otherwise recognized as being citizens, and not to confer natural born citizen status upon those born overseas.  “Considered as” does not equate to “shall now become.” This use of simile was a common rhetorical form used in the 18th century,  so as to provide a pro forma argument, in the case of the 1790 Naturalization Act,  promoting the mere citizenship status of those born overseas.   Such an argument for mere citizen status is more reasonably the purpose of any naturalization act, and NOT to declare them natural born citizens. This fact would explain why the phrase was entirely removed from the subsequent 1795 Naturalization Act, never to be seen again in American statute. It certainly makes no sense that, before the ink was even dry on the Constitution,  those same founders who so deliberately set the terms for President, would then leap to expanding the phrase natural born citizen to a group of persons that might never set foot on American soil. This is supported by the 1795 Naturalization Act, written by largely the same congress, which specifically REPEALS the 1790 Act, and recreates it nearly verbatim, except excluding any reference to natural born citizen, as well as the discovery by McElwee of the motivation of the House Committee for removing the phrasing, as detailed in 1 Stat 414 . ref
Advertisements

35 thoughts on “NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

  1. The dilution of the status of a “foreign born” US natural born Citizen by the application of the grammatical value of SIMILE to the term “considered as” may solve some concerns of there being a “foreign born” US natural born Citizen but it does NOT diminish the FACT of the ESTABLISHMENT of the Attendant Circumstances that produces a US natural born Citizen in congruity with the usage and intents of A2S1C5.

    Nor does it annul the FACT that the term of words “considered as” also hold the grammatical value of a “comparative adjective” that, when taken in context of the text of the Act in whole, requires a counterpart to which to compare. In context it can only be a US natural born Citizen being born somewhere other than “out of the limits” of the USA.

    The “attendant circumstances”, being the who,where, what when, why & how, are construed as the legal wife under coverture of a US Citizen father ANYWHERE in the world with those being foreign born subject to ADDITIONAL VETTING for purpose of A2S1C5.

    The 1795 Repeal & Replace Act remained substantially the same except for the notable cessation of considering those foreign born Children as US natural born Citizen. The LEGAL affect of that change was to thereafter LIMIT WHERE US natural born Citizens SHALL be born.

    The ONLY other Act that requires RECONCILIATION on the subject of the LEGAL STATUS of US natural born Citizens is the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the women’s independent citizenship & citizenship retention Act, which abrogated the ancient doctrine of matrimonial coverture.

    Lacking words that address the issue there was no affect on the established attendant circumstances of a US natural born Citizen so the relationships between husbands and wives MUST be reconciled to the needs of A2S1C5 and allow the consequences of those relationship fall where they may.

    Hence the consequence of a NEW STATUS of US Citizenship identified as “dual-citizen at birth”, an occurrence not possible under US Law before the Act.

    Reconciling the affects of the Act to the needs of A2S1C5 requires each of the parents, married or not, to be US Citizens independent of the other.

    A fact that is SKIPPED OVER is the ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of US Citizenship naturalization as it applies uniformly to ALL US Citizens, at birth or otherwise.

    The Right of Citizenship as applied by the 1790 and ALL subsequent Acts, replaces the ancient doctrines of BOTH Jus Soli & Sanguinis and expresses its own limits within the Act; ie, ” … Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:…”.

    The effect of the “(U.S. [implicit]) Right of Citizenship” can be characterized as providing: … ” … Once a person is a US Citizen then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the word; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: … ” (slc)

    Liked by 1 person

    • slcraignbc, while I appreciate your response, you repeatedly assert things as fact, when the claim is nowhere in evidence, and even demonstrably untrue.

      You begin this unfortunate habit with your first paragraph by asserting, that the recognition of the phrase “considered as natural born” to be simile does not diminish the “Fact of the attendant circumstances” in Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, that produce a natural born citizen. Yet nowhere in those “attendant circumstances” of A2S1C5 is there any indication that those born overseas to Citizen parents are to be natural born citizens. As famously recognized by Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”,

      The “FACT” you claim is nowhere provided by A2S1C5 of the U.S. Constitution, making your reference a false authority.

      In the second paragraph you briefly change your focus to grammatical, asserting that “considered as” is a comparative adjective. You conclude (as absolute fact) that the it “can only be” , or result in, a natural born citizen being born somewhere overseas. Yet a consideration of the Lexicology of the latter 18th Century shows your unsupported assertion to be untrue.

      Vattel himself, while describing the status of children born overseas in the armies of the state, in § 217, indicates these children to be “reputed born in the country.” Quite obviously Vattel does not literally mean that people should simply forget these children were born overseas and indicate they were born in the country. Immediately after use of the phrase “reputed born in the country”, Vattel explains the indication with, “for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” While comparing these two distinctly different conditions (and locations), the phrase “reputed born” is offered as a pro forma argument that those offspring should be recognized as citizens, not literally indicating they are born in the country, due to their parents having not “quitted” the Country. The 1790 Naturalization Act used the reference to natural born, the root of all citizenship, in the very same way, to argue in favor of the mere citizenship status of those born overseas, not to make them natural born citizens.

      The phrasing “considered as” is not the equivalent of “shall now become”.

      Contrary to your claim, it is not certain at all that the phrasing “considered as” in the 1790 Act “can only” intend to confer natural born citizen status on those born overseas. The mere fact that the 1790 Act was specifically repealed by the 1795 Act, which was nearly a verbatim reproduction of the 1790 Act except for the natural born reference being omitted, draws your claim into question. However with the notes of the 3rd Congress House Committee indicating concern for the “false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President”, it is clear that it was never the intent of the 1790 Act to confer natural born citizen status on those born overseas. Clearly the only possible relevance in the 1790 Act to the “President”, or presidency, is from the use of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

      Your claim that the “LEGAL effect” of the 1795 repeal & replace is to limit where those citizens shall be born is not necessarily true either. If the intent was never to confer natural born status, then the result of the Act’s repeal does not legally change the conditions at all. Incidentally, your habit of putting some words in all capitalization does not serve to make the claims any more truthful or authoritative.

      You make various references to statutory legislation and acts, such as the 1922 Cable Act in regard to coverture, Contrary to your indication of its relevance, the presumed naturalization of a woman by the act of her husband under that coverture in no way affects the terms of natural born citizen, nor alters the fact that each parent’s status has bearing on the offspring’s at-birth allegiance(s). One’s innate allegiance is acquired without regard to law. Your reference to coverture could not be more irrelevant to this discussion.

      Contrary to your representation, jus soli and jus sanguinis are not “ancient doctrines”, nor were these “replaced”. These are Latin phrases used to describe a particular legal philosophy applied in law which consider the impact of citizenship from the perspective of place of birth (soil) and inheritance (blood) respectively. In truth, this country’s citizenship laws involve both birth place and inheritance in their rationales. For instance, recognition of the citizenship of those born overseas is entirely founded on jus sanguinis philosophy of inheritance.

      Implicit in your heavy references to Positive Laws, is your belief that natural born citizen might be affected and altered by these laws, yet even you yourself recognize those laws as naturalization. As recognized by numerous legal scholars, and cited by Jill A. Pryor in her Yale Law Review paper on natural born, natural born citizen is a term of art from natural law, and by definition is entirely outside of man-made Positive Law. Pryor and others recognize that the only legitimate method to interpret the phrase natural born citizen is to establish the understanding held at the time by the founders. No statutory legislation has altered the terms of natural born, nor can it do so with any legitimacy. Even Blackstone’s documentation in his 1765 Commentaries of the evolving terms for natural born subject involved recognition that these were statutory definitions, even citing the statutory code, “enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2” . Thus British terms of natural born subject under the law, and by authority of the Crown, were no longer the same as the original terms, which to no surprise are documented to be the same as our own – birth in the country to parents who were citizens.

      You conclude your series of unsubstantiated and objectively false claims with a reference to citizenship status, which again is a legal statutory effect, and has no bearing whatsoever on the terms of natural born citizen. Citizenship under the law is not the same as natural born citizen status, not even if that legal citizenship status was attained upon birth.

      There is a reason that natural born citizen appears nowhere in our laws, beyond it being by definition outside the domain of Positive Law. We also have had no laws written which conspicuously declare the citizenship of those children born in the country of parents who were citizens. The reason for this notable absence from legislation, other than it being silly, is that such offspring are entirely indigenous and wholly native, and cannot possibly be the citizens of any other country. In fact such offspring are the root members of every society across mankind’s history, with their citizenship status being self-evident and natural.

      Like

      • Well, I appreciate your critique of my thoughts critiquing yours.

        The difference is that I understand where you are coming from and understand that because you are where you are you can not see the forest for the trees.

        I’ll attempt to shoot up a signal flare and either you’ll see it or not.

        “Attendant Circumstances” are those who, where, why, when what & hows of a provision of law,or as Black’s Law puts it; … “facts surrounding an event.”

        In the 1790 Acts provisions “event” being the birth of a child being considered as a US natural born Citizen with the where being out of the limits of the USA, the who being the US Citizen parents, specifically at the times, the legal wife under coverture to her US Citizen husband, the how being the effect of the established uniform Rule expressed as the Right of Citizenship and the what being a proviso that limits the Right of Citizenship in certain circumstances.

        So you see the Act DOES define the circumstances that produces a US natural born Citizen, anywhere in the world between March of 1790 and January 1795, when the foreign born provision was repealed and replaced thereby LIMITING WHERE Us natural born Citizen SHALL be born thereafter.

        Now, either you get it or don’t.

        The 1790 Act survived for the 1st 5 years of Our Country’s history as LAW made in pursuance of the COTUS and it did Establish an uniform Rule of US Citizenship naturalization which may be characterized as

        ” … Once a person is a US Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ” (slc) which, by the effect provided for in the 1790 Act is made an intrinsic feature of US Citizenship, at birth or otherwise.

        Like

      • TJ I quickly searched your article but I didn’t see it. Have you seen the letter from Madison to Jefferson about the Act of 1795?
        From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 11 January 1795
        To Thomas Jefferson
        Phila. Jany. 11. 17941 [1795]Dear Sir
        The last subject before the H. of Reps. was a Bill revising the Naturalization law, which from its defects & the progress of things in Europe was exposing us to very serious inconveniences. The Bill requires 1. A probationary residence of 5 instead of 2 years, with a formal declaration on oath of the intention 3 years at least prior to the admission. 2. an oath of abjuration, as well as of allegiance. 3. proof of good character, attachment to the principles of our Government, and of being well disposed to the good order & happiness of the U. S. 4. Where the candidate has borne any title or been of any order of Nobility, he is to renounce both on record. This last raised some dust. The Eastern members were weak eno’ to oppose it; and Dexter as a setoff moved a correspondent clog on emigrants attached to slave holding. Whether they will [be] able to throw the dust they have raised into the eyes of their Constituents I know not. It will not be easy I think to repair the blunder they have committed if it reaches the people. On the yeas & nays there [were] more thn. 60 for & little more than 30 agst. the clause. The Bill is gone to the Senate.
        http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0345

        Like

  2. While I continue to appreciate that you responded, the overwhelming problem here is not a “forest” nor “trees”, but rather the steaming pile of malarkey you construct.

    You don’t need to send up a signal flare, as I am not at all lost and now know entirely where you are coming from.

    What you have stated in your replies is both intellectually and factually dishonest. It is made further clear that your intent is not any sort of reasoned discussion by your repeated desperate grasps at false authority.

    Oh, I also took some time and reviewed your web page, which is filled with the same vacuous rationalizations devoid of real factual reference, and self-aggrandizing rhetoric trying for all the world to sound intellectual, all for the purpose of undermining the importance of natural born. To no surprise you steadfastly avoid any recognition of history, Supreme Court discussion of principle, and the wide variety of writings on the matter, much less employing these in any intellectually honest analysis. By this evidences you firmly establish your identity as nothing but a superficial progressive statist, with no appreciation for our founding principles whatsoever. You don’t argue the principles of this country out of regard and appreciation, but rather dismiss it with disdain.

    Your ‘Attendant Circumstances” of who, what, when, where, why, and how, are nothing but deflection and a lot of irrelevant hand-waving intending by false and irrelevant argument, to present the claim that the intent was to confer natural born citizen status on those born overseas. I fully admit that the 1790 Naturalization Act involves when, where, and why, but that Act does so solely for the purpose of recognizing the citizen status of those born overseas, which is what one expects from a Naturalization act, and NOT to confer upon them natural born citizen status.

    Likewise the “what and why” of Coverture continues to be entirely irrelevant to not only the 1790 Naturalization ACT, but also to the terms of natural born citizen, even when both parents citizenship status is taken into consideration.

    The 1790 Naturalization Act did survive five years, however in 1795 the it was specifically repealed despite the near verbatim repeat of the act absent the reference to natural born. There is no evidence whatsoever, not in any writings of the time, that the 1790 Naturalization Act intended to confer natural born status on those born overseas. However there is evidence from the 3rd Congress and the hand of James Madison himself that the reference to Natural Born was removed specifically because the the wrong inference some drew from the reference to natural born citizen.

    They never intended to recognize those born overseas as natural born citizens! None of your argument thus far has in any way weakened that fact, or the evidence supporting it, thought it has tried to do so by less-than-honest means.

    If you do not make an effort in future responses to provide honest argument, ideally without your false condescension, then your future responses will be removed. However I will allow your arguments to remain up to this point as they are stellar examples of the dishonesties employed in this arena.

    Like

  3. P.S.;

    I’m just curious and wish to understand the rationalizations of you and your birds of a feather and would appreciate a rational thought response to the question;…

    … Why is it that you and yours accept Vattel’s narrative expression of the attendant circumstances of HIS understanding of a “natural born Citizen”, as well as those instances withing the DICTA of various cases based on King Wlm III 7 Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality as interpreted by various English Jurists, inc. Lord Coke & Sir Blackstone as further interpreted by various US Judges & Justices but refuse to give even a modicum of relevance to the ACTUAL US LAW that expresses the attendant circumstances of a US natural born Citizen by the 1st US Congress of 1790….?????????????????????

    P.S.S,

    When considering Vattel be sure to include Chap 215 in your understanding of HIS nbC, and would suggest that to understand Vattel in all his glory it is helpful to 1st read Aristotle’s three BOOks on POLITICS, especially Book III Part II, it being Vattel’s source of consideration of “citizens of a country”.

    Like

    • You seem incapable of exhibiting any reason and argument beyond the practiced habits of progressives, which are inherently intellectually corrupt. Your “question(s)” are not really questions at all, but a series of presumptions, commonly false, offered without any argument to support those presumptions, with the question being offered in support of a preordained conclusion, yet nowhere directly stated. You presume that such vague references to Lord Coke, Blackstone and even Vattel support your beliefs, without any indicated relevance, making only vague reference to these authorities, when an extended survey shows they actually do not support your assertions. In short, your questions are nothing more than your own unfounded opinion offered in the form of inquiry.

      Your first question assumes at the very end, yet again, that the 1790 Naturalization Act intended to confer natural born citizen status upon those born overseas, when thus far the only feeble claim you’ve offered vaguely resembling an argument in support this opinion is reference to “Attendant Circumstance”. Yet this attendant circumstances argument has already been addressed and shown to be non-probative by the fact that the reasonable intent of the act, indicated by the Act itself, is to only recognize those persons as citizens, as would be expected from a naturalization act. Yes, the indication of the terms of citizenship requires stipulation of those attendant circumstances as well.

      It’s rather conflicted that in this one response that you both challenge Vattel’s authority, but then also reference Section 215 to rely on that authority, again making another assumption that Section 215 supports you, when it does not.

      Emmerich de Vattel is not speaking as any sort of singular authority, and indeed there would be no reason for anyone to recognize a Swiss philosopher writing in French as such an incontestable singular authority. Vattel’s treatise Law of Nations began as an effort to translate Christan Wolff’s preceding writing Jus Gentium (1749) (also meaning “Law of Nations”) from German to a more common language, such as French. Today we would recognize these two refereences to the Law of Nations as being synonymous with “International Law”, or principles of governance generally recognized by all nations.

      Vattel’s Section 215 applies to recognizing as mere citizens the children born overseas of citizen parents. Contrary to your implied argument, Section 215 has no relevance whatsoever to the terms of natural born, with Vattel indicating in the first sentence the application to be, “whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens.” However even in recognizing that citizenship, and that the offspring should naturally follow the condition of the father (Parneralism & Coverture), Vattel recognizes this is not universally recognized, and the citizenship in each state is contingent upon relevant law. Despite the reference to “naturally”, this has no bearing on natural born citizen.

      Vattel provides a concise definition of the terms of natural born citizen in only one place, across two sentences in Section 212, discussing Citizens and Natives. None of Vattel’s subsequent references have anything to do with natural born citizen status, not even the Paternalism/Coverture reference in the same paragraph to the philosophy that the children follow the condition of the father. In fact those born overseas, regardless of parentage, are by the definition of the time, “aliens” and/or “foreigners”, and not natives of the country.

      Elsewhere in this blog I have discussed Lord Coke and Calvin’s Case in regard to the current popularity of common law grand juries. British common law is a representation of Medieval feudal philosophy. As a part of Calvin’s case (1608), Lord Coke expounded on the British concept “Law of Nature” in terms of the Medieval feudal philosophy of noblesse oblige wherein a person is born into a position in society with obligation to those above them, their superiors:.

      “It hath been proved before, that ligeance or obedience of the inferior to the superior, of the subject to the Sovereign, was due by the Law of Nature many thousand years before any Law of man was made: Which ligeance or obedience (being the onely mark to distinguish a subject from an alien) could not be altered; therefore it remaineth still due by the Law of Nature.” (Coke(1608), pp.197-8)

      It should be unnecessary to point on that this British feudal concept of the Law of Nature, and the overriding obligation to superiors, is incongruous with and an anathema to our own Natural Law principle based on unalienable individual rights in which the singular purpose of government is to protect those rights, and secure the people, however given your clear Progressive statist predilections it becomes necessary. This country and the Constitution were founded as a thorough rejection of these British Medieval feudal philosophies.

      In Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Horace Gray gives an inaccurate representation of “natural born subject”, which he identifies as resulting from birth on any of the Kingdom’s soil, and indicates the source of this claim to be Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries. However in making this claim, Gray only cherry-picks Blackstone’s representation in that same 1765 Commentaries, given that Blackstone identifies the terms of natural born subject to be progressively expanding, even to include those born to overseas, and done by Crown dictate, therefore only a statutory definition, even referencing the British statutes.

      In fact only 30 years prior to Blackstone’s Commentaries, in 1736, British jurist Matthew Bacon recognized the original terms of “natural born Subject” to be:

      “All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions”
      (Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, 1736, Vol 1,pg 77)

      Not only does this indicate that the place of birth must be within the “dominion” (British territory) itself, but it also indicates that the parents must be under the “actual obedience” of the King. This emphasis on “actual Obedience” is in direct conflict with Justice Gray’s own presumed obedience of Law in Gray’s Wong Kim Ark discussion of the 14th Amendment and natural born. Presumed obedience resulting from mere temporary happenstance of giving birth within the territory does not equate to the obligation of actual obedience of being a citizen, or subject, not even under British feudal doctrine. Given this British root meaning, those who had foreign allegiance and gave birth on British soil did not result in offspring being British natural born subjects. Even the Crown has no authority overthrow other allegiance and make subjects of those who are alien, much less any desire to do so to those for those who might be foreign enemies.

      Despite being phrased differently, this definition by Bacon actually recognizes the original terms of natural born subject to be the same as our own, and the same as related by Vattel, involving (1) the actual allegiance (citizenship) of both parents and (2) birth within the territory, or dominion.

      So much for your false claims regarding Vattel, Coke, Blackstone, and even U.S. Statutory law, and implication that I disregard these. The problem is that you actually are not sufficiently familiar with any of them to actually understand them in context.

      In Conclusion, natural born citizen is not a product of statutory law, and the whole array of U.S. naturalization laws only apply to “citizen” and “citizenship”, and in no way have any relevance to the terms of natural born citizen, inclusive of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

      Like

  4. Now you’re just ranting nonsense, and still no argument.

    1) The “:ACTUAL LAW” has no bearing on Natural born.

    2) There is no “ACTUAL LAW” in America that applies to natural born; it’s all naturalization law applying specifically only to citizen status.

    3) Vattel’s definition of natural born was not considering a hypothetical country, but rather recognizing what is invariably recognized as the root of all citizenship in every country, and still is.

    4) Justice CJ Waite did not “resort” to the 1790 Act in any facet to establish Virginia Minor’s citizenship, but rather only to the definition of natural as being birth in the country to parents who were citizens.

    5) There is no “kicker” in US v Villato, Collett v Collett, and Talbot v Janson , as the laws on U.S. Citizenship have no bearing on natural born status, regardless of them being post 1790 Naturalization Act. That Act was the only law to ever reference NBC and it did not confer NBC status upon anyone.

    6) None of those cases refer to any sort of “superiority” of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which is ridiculous to even suggest, and it would be absurd to do so given that the Act was entire repealed only 5 years later by the 1795 Act, with “natural born” never appearing ever again in any U.S. law . Your claims are not only irrelevant, and but thoroughly silly.

    7) I have not denigrated the legal concept of “attendant circumstances at all.

    8) I have proven your reference to attendant circumstances is false, because those attendant circumstances reference only citizen status under the law, and have no bearing whatsoever on your false argument that they somehow prove that conferring natural citizen status was the intent of the Act..

    9) Recognition that a law “cannot be written” without reference to attendant circumstances, does not change the fact that those attendant circumstances only applied to citizen status.

    X) Writing words in all capitalization still does not give your argument any more validity, or force. You’re only writing as a child would.

    Like

    • I stopped at;

      1) The “:ACTUAL LAW” has no bearing on Natural born.

      The Constitution is STATUTORY in its CONSTRUCTION and IS the Supreme LAW of the Land, ergo, the EXPRESSED LEGAL REQUIREMENT for eligibility to the Office of POTUS makes the existence of “US natural born citizens” a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the LEGAL occupation of the Office of POTUS.

      Legal & Constitution being synonymous in the context above.

      AiS8C4 REQUIRES an uniform Rule be established regarding the naturalization of US Citizens which would be uniformly applied to even those persons who were collectively naturalized by the ratification of the COTUS, ie, the Founding Generation.

      The 1790 Act established an uniform Rule that preformed the functions of jus soli and jus sanguinis expressed simply as “the Right of Citizenship” and the Act expressed how it applied to new and existing citizens in various circumstances with the effect being, “Once a person is a US Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world; w/proviso’s” (slc)

      The Act WAS the Supreme Law of the Land for five years and acknowledged as such in at least three (3) SCOTUS cases previously mentioned.

      As for your concern of a “foreign born” natural born Citizen, most every Founder was a “natural born subject” of England even though NEVER setting foot in England.

      But had you read Chap 215 of Vattel you may have lost that concern.

      That, & recall that John Jay was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Confederation of States and had sent 100s, perhaps 1,000’s of Patriots to various countries is service of the States, many replete with their families. In NOT providing for “foreign born” US natural born Citizens may well have been challenged as an Ex Post Facto Law had any of the children been denied the status.

      That of course is speculation on my part given that it was not challenged for that cause or any other since the ratification of the COTUS

      [ .. UNWARRANTED AD HOMINEM SLUR REMOVED. DO SO AGAIN AND THE SAME WILL APPLY TO COMMENT PRIVILEGE…]

      A US natural born Citizen did NOT exist prior to the Ratification of the COTUS, notwithstanding the bastardized English sort or the hypothetical of Vattel, the FACT is that US natural born Citizens were conceived in the COTUS and BORN in the 1790 Act, conforming to the original WM III’s, Vattel’s & Aristotle’s conception, sans both jus soli & sanguinis with a NEW and wholly American means of Citizenship perpetuation, the Right of Citizenship.

      You may editorialize with opinion in opposition to the proposition of Constitutional & Federal Law as reconciled, but mine is based on LAW & yours on opinion.

      Like

  5. You should really stop, just stop, before you reach a level of stupidity that might involve harm to yourself and I have to alert the authorities,

    The Constitution is STATUTORY in its CONSTRUCTION and IS the Supreme LAW of the Land, ergo, the EXPRESSED LEGAL REQUIREMENT for eligibility to the Office of POTUS makes the existence of “US natural born citizens” a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the LEGAL occupation of the Office of POTUS.

    Legal & Constitution being synonymous in the context above.

    1) While the Constitution is statutory in construction, and the law of the land, and the requirement for POTUS references natural born citizen, making it a legal requirement is all true… none of this has any bearing on the fact that statutes on citizenship, and naturalization law also involving citizenship, DO NOT define natural born citizen, and only recognize citizen status. Natural born is recognized to be a term of art from natural law, which is by definition entirely outside of man-made Positive Law. Your desperate argument is a waste of space and nothing but irrelevant nonsense.

    AiS8C4 REQUIRES an uniform Rule be established regarding the naturalization of US Citizens which would be uniformly applied to even those persons who were collectively naturalized by the ratification of the COTUS, ie, the Founding Generation.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 does not “require” anything. It indicates that Congress has the authority to create a uniform rule of naturalization. Yes, that naturalization applies to those who are “collectively naturalized”, which involves those who are naturalized by naturalization laws.

    The authority of naturalization does NOT give Congress any authority to change the meaning of words, in this case the phrase ” “natural born citizen”, which is a term of art with long-established meaning and terms. If Congress were able to alter the meaning of words, and that phrase in particular, then Congress would be altering the Constitution by a means not supported by the Article V amendment process, and doing so would be illegitimate, and flagrantly unconstitutional. Fortunately the meaning of natural born does not fall within Congress’ authority over naturalization, and is beyond the authority of anythjing but a a constitutionally illegitimate Congress.

    The 1790 Act established an uniform Rule that preformed the functions of jus soli and jus sanguinis expressed simply as “the Right of Citizenship” and the Act expressed how it applied to new and existing citizens in various circumstances with the effect being, “Once a person is a US Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world; w/proviso’s” (slc)

    The Act WAS the Supreme Law of the Land for five years and acknowledged as such in at least three (3) SCOTUS cases previously mentioned.

    Finish your sentence. The 1790 act established “an uniform rule” .. of naturalizaiton. As a naturalization law, that 1790 Act applies only to the making of citizens of those who would not otherwise be citizens. Citizenship by naturalization kaw is recognized to be the antithesis of natural born citizen status.

    As clearly stipulated by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, for any law to be recognized as the law of the land, it must first be pursuant to the Constitution. If the Congress were in any law to claim the authority to re-define natural born citizen status , and thereby circumvent the only means to alter the Constitution in Article V, then that law would not be pursuant to the Constitution, and would not be law of the land. The founders foresaw your level of corruption and dishonesty.

    Your backdoor attempt at pseudo-rationalization of the reference in the 1790 Act being a lawful and deliberate definition by Congress does not fly, and frankly the attempt is jejune. Further, the claim is made entirely moot by the 1790 Act’s entire repeal in 1795.

    As for your concern of a “foreign born” natural born Citizen, most every Founder was a “natural born subject” of England even though NEVER setting foot in England.

    But had you read Chap 215 of Vattel you may have lost that concern.

    I have no concern about “foreign born natural born citizens”, as there is no such thing. The unwaivering terms of natural born citizen status require birth on this country’s soil.

    Those founders were indeed natural born subjects of Britain, being born on British soil. However the Article II natural born citizen requirement provides an exception, the Grandfather Clause, allowing those to be President who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, The reason for this exception is that, despite the obligation of allegiance, those founders stood by this country and were instrumental in its creation. None of the founders were natural born citizens because this country had no soil to be born upon, much less parents who might be citizens of this country at the time of their births.

    Vattel’s Section 215 makes no mention of natural born citizen, does not apply to natural born citizen, and only provides argument for those born overseas being citizens.

    That, & recall that John Jay was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Confederation of States and had sent 100s, perhaps 1,000’s of Patriots to various countries is service of the States, many replete with their families. In NOT providing for “foreign born” US natural born Citizens may well have been challenged as an Ex Post Facto Law had any of the children been denied the status.

    This is absurd speculation which, even if true, does not serve as even a crutch to support your unfounded claim that the 1790 Act sought to redefine natural born.

    While John Jay may have sent persons overseas, he would not have sent women to plead America’s cause, much less pregnant women, none with their families, and Jay certainly would not feel any urgent need to provide for those persons to be President years later in the 1790 Naturalization Act. As things stood, those persons overseas would have been covered by the Article II Grandfather Clause, and even quite capable of holding the office of President. Again, your speculation is nothing short of absurd.

    A US natural born Citizen did NOT exist prior to the Ratification of the COTUS, notwithstanding the bastardized English sort or the hypothetical of Vattel, the FACT is that US natural born Citizens were conceived in the COTUS and BORN in the 1790 Act, conforming to the original WM III’s, Vattel’s & Aristotle’s conception, sans both jus soli & sanguinis with a NEW and wholly American means of Citizenship perpetuation, the Right of Citizenship.

    You may editorialize with opinion in opposition to the proposition of Constitutional & Federal Law as reconciled, but mine is based on LAW & yours on opinion.

    U.S. natural born citizen did not exist even immediately after the the ratification of the Constitution, hence the need for the Grandfather Clause in Article II.

    While the existence of a United States was recognized to result in the concomitant transition and transfer of the citizenship of members of that society, the natural born citizen status itself did not transfer for the founders with that citizenship. This alone is overwhelming proof positive that natural born is about far more than legal status as a citizen.

    While those founders may have been citizens from this country’s inception, and even by the war they asserted that there was no other allegiance they were bound to, they still were not natural born citizens of this country, and they were born with allegiance and bias to another country, and cold not be natural born citizens of this country.

    While it is amusing as hell to hear you claim that your position is based on law, showing your blind belief in statism, actually nothing you claim has any basis in law, or even fact. In truth your claims of “law” are nothing but your own rendition of what a law says, or should be, and not what the actual law itself indicates or intends. You are the very sort of individual that this nation’s founders sought to protect against, by limiting the authority of the federal government, and guarding the office of President from foreign influence. You are, in no uncertain terms, the proverbial “enemy within.”

    And once again, your desperate effort at providing argument is devoid of any and all substance.

    Like

  6. After further review of slcraignbc’s blog site, I have a few additional observations.

    The single-article blog overall consists of very few external references overall, certainly no direct historical reference of any authoritative value applied within a specific argument. In the utter absence of these authoritative historical references, the author instead engages in convoluted rationalizations and hand-waving hoping to establish overall that the 1790 Naturalization Act might somehow still be the fundamental of naturalization principle still today, entirely ignoring the fact that Act was specifically and entirely repealed in 1795, and thereby clearly not of any great importance at all to this nation’s very founders.

    By the fact of the Act’s deliberate repeal, the 1790 Act is most certainly not any sort of guiding principle of naturalization, much less having any ongoing bearing at all on the terms for natural born citizen.

    The utter absence of any authoritative references and historical argument is strong indication that the author is only engaging a preconceived agenda to reach a prejudicial conclusion, one which has thorough disregard for constitutional principle and the founder’s intent. The author titles this specious article “FOUNDERS DREAMS”, when it is far more accurately nothing but his own fabrications and imaginings, with no regard for the founder’s intent whatsoever. Given the clear echo by this title of Obama’s own biography, this article might be more accurately referenced as “Obama’s Corruption” and this Country’s Nightmare In truth, this country’s founders and history provide no support for these claims at all. .

    The author makes the curious assertion , again without any authoritative support whatsoever, that natural born citizen involves anyone made a citizen upon birth, or a “born citizen”, regardless of place of birth:

    The “Citizenship” acquisition at birth is identified as that form of “Citizenship” that fulfills the existence requirement of the A2S1C5 (U.S.{implicit}) natural born Citizen, that also must be distinguishable from any and all other conditions of U.S. Citizenship under the statutory formulation of the Clause.

    Despite this emphatic claim that merely a citizen upon birth, or “born citizen”, satisfies the terms of natural born citizen, the author provides no reference whatsoever to make that unsupported leap. The leap is entirely without support in history, or even by his own convoluted “logic”.

    It should be recognized as fundamentally true that members of a society, any society, do not transport that society with them when they sojourn outside of that society, regardless of gender. While any offspring that might be born abroad are generally recognized as having a certain entitlement to a membership in the country of their parent(s), that entitlement involves citizenship alone, and does not constitute any sort of complete, innate membership in that society, and therefore not reasonably nor rationally in any way a natural member thereof — not a natural born citizen at all.

    For this reason such persons born abroad, outside the country, are invariably, without exception, made (only) citizens by law, specifically naturalization law. Such persons are unmistakably naturalized, and again not natural born.

    By long-established principle of constitutional law:

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
    (C.Justice Marshall, 1803)

    The fact that the Constitution is not “form without substance”, does entirely kill the claim that a natural born citizen might be the same as a “born citizen”. The word “natural” adds profound significance and enormously alters the phrase, and is not a throw-away term, despite a general ignorance of its meaning .

    In the words of Justice Marshall, the contrived and intellectually dishonest construction that “born citizen” is the same as “natural born citizen” is entirely “inadmissible” – without any historical, constitutional, or legal validity.

    .

    Like

    • So, in your rebuttal to a simple question you again fail to answer the question and in doing so distract again from the TRUTH of the interpretations of the 1790 Act that I posit.

      The titles of the 1790 AND 1795 Act are one in the same and in all substantive ways in context of analysis and effects and therefore the 1795 Act REAFFIRMS the proposition that “an uniform Rule” WAS established.

      (SNIP illegitimate ad hominem address)

      …. and if you are going to delete some of my posts wouldn’t be more honest to delete them all, no one else seems to visit your site anyway………….

      Like

  7. slcraignbc wrote:

    So, in your rebuttal to a simple question you again fail to answer the question and in doing so distract again from the TRUTH of the interpretations of the 1790 Act that I posit.

    I did not have any sort of rebuttal to a “simjple question”, but rather addressed your blog site specifically, Furthermore, honest and valid arguments are not made in the form of questions, and do not require elicit any sort of address at all. Phrasing implied arguments by the presumptions of a question, is only a scurrilous means to promote a false and unsupported argument, and not legitimate discussion.

    There is no such “TRUTH” to the interpretations you provide, they are bogus and irrelevant given that your representations involve only assertions that have no possible bearing on the content of the 1790 Act, nor its intent, nor recognizing that this Act was entirely replealed, entirely removing the “natural born phrasing” by which you contend that those born overseas are natural born citizens. Furthermore, you have only repeated previously made assertions, without any further argument, nor support, yet they have already been addressed and entirely invalidated, thereby removing any need to have them reiterated without further argument. (Your dishonest tactics don’t fly here.)

    slcraignbc wrote:

    The titles of the 1790 AND 1795 Act are one in the same and in all substantive ways in context of analysis and effects and therefore the 1795 Act REAFFIRMS the proposition that “an uniform Rule” WAS established.

    The claim that a “uniform rule” ( “of naturalization”) was established is irrelevant. Of note, you once again conveniently leave out the fact that the rule is “of naturalization”, thereby necessarily only resulting in a naturalized citizen.

    The fact that both Acts have similar titles is irrelevant. The fact that the 1795 Act, and every naturalization act to follow, have no further reference to “natural born citizen” is the only valid consideration to the argument at hand. You are making a thoroughly dishonest argument by the implication that any supposed relevance to natural born citizen was continued in subsequent acts, when it quite definitively was not, as seen by the fact that the phrase “natural born citizen” appears nowhere in any of those later acts themselves.

    You are presenting nothing but a dishonest argument, and it will not be indulged here.

    Thus far I have deleted your comments only when they provide the same dishonest arguments previously made and previously refuted, which are entirely invalid by terms of logic and fact alone. They will not be given further airing. If you want to actually try a legitimate argument, it just may be entertained, but I’m fairly certain you’re entirely incapable of that sort of intellectual honesty, much less factual knowledge.

    Like

  8. […] Read this excellent essay and lesson from history and how the political hack attorneys of both political parties and the Congressional Research Service are deceiving Congress and the world by using a REPEALED and defective Naturalization Law to try and make a false point about who really is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama are NATURALIZED Citizens by statutory law and are NOT “natural born Citizens” per Natural Law.  Read how James Madison communicated via letter to Thomas Jefferson about the defects in that 1790 first act of the first Congress and the need to totally REPEAL it:   https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/new-evidence-1790-naturalization-act/ […]

    ( EDITOR: Thank you, Commander Kerchner, for citing this article!
    https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/via-liberty-born-new-evidence-intent-of-1790-naturalization-act/ )

    Like

  9. I just want to know what justice system would you present the 1790 Naturalization Act to?

    Would it be the Continental United States, Law Of The Land, enforcement by Common Laws, Natural Laws and God’s Laws by the people and for the people?

    Or would it be the United States of America INC, Law of the Sea, Papal See, enforcement by ABR/BAR British Crown as all Foreign Agents working on behalf of themselves for profit?

    Difficult to win in your enemies justice system – yes – no?

    Like

    • What Justice system? We have one justice system in this country but there are various laws that have jurisdiction in particular locations, however within this country’s territory, it is one set of laws..

      However given the fact that the 1790 Naturalization Act was a naturalization act, and people are not generally charged with “naturalization others by improper terms”, it is unlikely that the 1790 Act would be “presented to” anyone in any justice system.

      It appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this country, its principles, and the methods of our legal system.

      Furthermore, common law has nothing to do with “for the people and by the people”, given rather it is “from the judges” and “for the crown.”.

      Natural law is not codified, and it is not a part of God’s law, even though the Declaration of Independence indicates our rights come from “Nature’s god”.

      America , the federal government, is most definitely not Incorporated. The Organic Act of 1871 only incorporated the municipal government of the District of Columbia. That municipal government of the District of Columbia is not running this country, nor affecting anyone outside of D.C.

      There would be no new authority, power or immunity gained by the federal government if it were incorporated, so the claim it is incorporated is really quite pointless and silly.

      Ri-chard, must assuredly it is difficult to win in a legal system where your beliefs have so thoroughly disabled you. However you would stand a much better chance with a bag over your head.

      After your initial reply over in the “common law grand juries” discussion, it is now quite clear that you’ve been extremely mis-educated and debilitated by the thorough ignorances of the Sovereign Citizen movement. If you got your info from more than one place, you would stand a chance of detoxifying, even by accident., by actually learning something valid.

      Ri-chard, I sincerely wish you the best O’luck in tilting with windmills.

      Like

      • (EDITOR’S NOTE, TJ McCann: “Ri-chard”, in the course of an hour and a half, has plastered 5 new comments onto this forum, inclusive of the one below, and beyond the two previously approved comments, one being an extensive post with as little as 4 minutes following the previous post. None of these posts offer any external support or references whatsoever for the claims being made, and it is evident that Ri-chard is only posting unfounded Sovereign Citizen nonsense, and did not heed my previous advice about doing actual resource from different, non-polluted “wells”. None of Ri-chard’s further comments will be approved for the blog unless he provides that references for his claims.

        My comments to Ri-chard’s claims are inserted in maroon text, below. )

        I was going to let your uneducated comment go, but thought I would baby set you a little so it does not disturb you too much. The Northwest Ordinance, Federal Proprietorship, and the Western States

        The Northwest Ordinance of the United States is part of our Organic Law and provides a progressive means for Territories to become States, however, there has been no Continental Congress since 1860 competent to actually enroll the States created by Statehood Compacts.

        The “Congress” operating in DC since then has been operating in other capacities in the international jurisdiction of the sea as a corporation and as the “representatives” of a foreign constitutional democracy of 57 “states” including the seven Insular States of Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. plus 50 inchoate Federal States.

        (Editor: I am aware of the Northwest Ordinance, and aware that it is recognized as one of the four “Organic Laws” of this country, the other three being Declaration of Independence, Articles Confederation, and Constitution.

        I am aware too, that the various Territories were brought into the Union as States, by less-than-legitimate terms, in the aftermath of the Civil War, probably the most egregious of which is Nevada, with a claimed 85% of federal lands. I’ve written extensively about this problem, primarily on other sites, so as to inform people.

        Nowhere among any of these concerns, or any other facts, is there anything that involves this country being transitioned to some sort of Maritime Corporation subject to International Law, nor Maritime Law. If you want to affix blame for that, I suggest you take a look at the United Nations, and the other foreign authorities that globalists award authority to in this allegedly sovereign country.

        No, contrary to your claims, the problems within this country were not enacted and achieved by anything resembling official authority, but rather by old fashioned corruption. Your claims are not only unfounded, but so thoroughly unfounded and ignorant of the facts that they are ridiculous – worthy of tremendous ridicule. )

        There hasn’t been a “Land Congress” since 1860. We haven’t sent anyone to Philadelphia (not DC) in a Fiduciary Deputy capacity to act in behalf of the Land Jurisdiction in 150 years. Let that fact sink in.

        I live on the Land and on the Sea and it is very evident.

        We actually have not had a “Continental Congress” since long before “1860”. The last Continental Congress was held before these United States of America was formed under the Articles of Confederation, which gave this union that title for this country in the first Article of that document. Since then that body has been the “Congress”, or “Congress of the United States.”

        Most sane people recognize that during its entire history, that Congress has been land-based, not at all a maritime Congress in any facet.

        Maritime law only has application outside the jurisdiction of a country’s own laws.

        While the gold fringed flag seen in many courtrooms, even in Congress, may have its origins as a nautical flag, the fact is that the decor of a courtroom (or of Congress itself), i.e. the flags, does not determine jurisdiction. Translation: we are not a nautical country subject to Maritime Law simply because a flag has gold fringe. This is nothing but Sovereign Citizen nonsense, having no basis in any fact, promulgated by persons who do not understand even the basics of our legal system, and more enjoy convoluted conspiracy theories promoted by persons with even less grasp than themselves. These are the “polluted wells” I previously referenced.

        What is “very evident” is that you’re both lost at sea and out to lunch at the same time.)

        Like

  10. T. J. McCann wrote:

    The reason for this exception is that, despite the obligation of allegiance, those founders stood by this country and were instrumental in its creation. None of the founders were natural born citizens because this country had no soil to be born upon, much less parents who might be citizens of this country at the time of their births.

    While that is a good reason for this exception, it was not the main reason. The main reason stems from another requirement for the office of the President.

    “neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years”

    The age of thirty five years requirement barred “natural born Citizens” from being eligible for the office of the President between 1787 and 1822, so Citizens of the United States who swore allegiance to the Constitution at its adoption were grandfathered to serve in the office of the President during the interim that “natural born Citizens” after the adoption of the Constitution were maturing to the age of thirty five Years.

    Like

    • Durus, there are a number of problems with your theory that the Grandfather Clause of Article II applies to the age requirement of 35 years.

      The first problem is that the phrasing of the Grandfather Clause itself shows it to be particularly tailored to the requirement of being a natural born citizen:

      Article II Requirements for President:

      No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

      As structured grammatically, the Grandfather Clause, in bold, started with a caveat “or”, is offered as an alternative to the demand of being a natural born citizen, and is in no way applled to age, or another requirement, all of which follow the Grandfather Clause and introduced with the phrase “neither shall”.

      Furthermore, I’m sure to the surprise of many, none of the founders to be President had any sort of problem meeting the requirement of 35 years.

      George Washington assumed the office of President at age 57 years.

      John Adams at 62 years of age.

      Thomas Jefferson at age 57

      James Madison at 57.

      James Munroe at 58.

      John Quincy Adams at 57.

      Andrew Jackson at 61.

      Like

      • Pardon me, you appear to have restated my “theory” incorrectly.

        While the Grandfather Clause does not apply to or has no affect on the age requirement of 35, the age requirement of 35 years made the Grandfather Clause necessary.

        Did the age requirement of 35 years bar or prohibit “natural born Citizens” or persons born to parents who were Citizens of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution from being eligible to the office of the President until 1822?

        If yes, then there is no problem with my “theory”.

        Without the addition of the Grandfather Clause, no persons would have been eligible to the office of the president between 1787 and 1822.

        Therefore, the age requirement of 35 years made the Grandfather Clause necessary. .

        If the Founders had omitted the Grandfather Clause from the Constitution at its adoption in 1787, then Article 2, Section 1 would read as follows:

        No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years

        No persons would have been eligible to the office of the President until 1822.

        Like

      • Durus, apologies. If I relayed your theory inaccurately it is only from what you yourself have indicated. Even your response now does nothing to clarify your claim whatsoever.

        Instead of presenting the rationale behind your claim, as would be appropriate, you phrase your claim as a question, and then without any argument or explanation, you simply reiterate your claim in answer to your own question, and then affirm the claim yet again!

        In point of fact, even from only examination of the phrase itself, natural born citizen is an at-birth status, with ones later age being entirely irrelevant to that at-birth condition. Thus far you have not indicated any argument to assert otherwise.

        Without the grandfather clause, those founders themselves were ineligible to hold the office of President becausae they were not born in this country of parents who were citizens — given that this country did not exist! While their legal citizenship was recognized to transfer with with this country coming into existence, their natural born status did not, as they were each born owing allegiance from birth to foreign countries – typically Britain.

        The consideration of “age” is without doubt the requirement for President that is the most entirely removed from having anything at all to do with natural born status. To be blunt, the terms of natural born have nothing whatsoever to do with “age” at all, beyond being born, which involves the initiation of the age “counter”.

        Like

  11. Thank you for the excellent explanation. I truthfully didn’t come here with the intention of proving myself or anyone else wrong or right, but rather to increase my understanding. I could read articles on the same subject all day and understand it more and more each time even though it contains the same information. It’s more about the different ways things are explained.

    Anyways, I wanted to point out that the more precise word for what you say is Simile is actually an Analogy… It’s more or less an extended form of Simile. Properly defined, an Analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification…; a correspondence or partial similarity…; a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.

    So while it is still a Simile it is a little more complex so technically it’s an Analogy.

    Like

    • Well, for there to be an analogy, there must be a direct comnparison of two things and showing how they are similar to one another. Yet there is no sort o comparison involved, and no direct or implied argument of these two considerations being at all alike. In fact claiming that the two considered conditions might be at all analogous to one another, or alike, is contrary to the intent of the founders, and the reason for the reference to natural born citizen being used.

      The reason similie was used, not analogy, is to argue in favor of the mere citizen status of those born overseas, when those so born would not otherwise have any citizen status at all.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well, for there to be an analogy, there must be a direct comnparison of two things and showing how they are similar to one another. Yet there is no sort o comparison involved, and no direct or implied argument of these two considerations being at all alike. In fact claiming that the two considered conditions might be at all analogous to one another, or alike, is contrary to the intent of the founders, and the reason for the reference to natural born citizen being used.

      The reason similie was used, not analogy, is to argue in favor of the mere citizen status of those born overseas, when those so born would not otherwise have any citizen status at all.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Since the SCOTUS is not interested in hearing cases involving NBC perhaps it would be proper to have a debate on this issue in a public forum for everyone to hear and understand the true meaning of what our founders intended. This might dispel the accounts and interpretations of those that tries to circumvent our laws. People like Levin. Maskel, and other progressives can form their team. TJ McCann can form his or he can do it just by himself and I’m very confident he can defend the founders intent easily.

    Like

    • Amatteo, my impressin is that there may be at least some Justices among SCOTUS who would be interested in resolving the NBC issue, and may indeed have strong opinions about the currently popular terms for NBC being wrong. However, as I’ve commented previously, the problem is one of Justiciability, with the Court being prohibited by Separation of Powers from speaking on the issue of a candidate’s qualification, because that authority is assigned by the Constitution to Congress.

      And I’m not so sure I’d recognize “debate” as what is needed. I’ve seen and been involved with debating, and it is largely an academic exercised scored on form and not based on the substance of the facts. Debating teaches one to argue, but is not so good at airing of fact, and resolve of issues by a factual basis.

      Ive been engaging these arguments since before Obama’s election, on various forums, in written form, and on broadcasts live. I’ve seen every argument and tactic used by the left, many of which Levin and Cruz supporters are curiously using now. I believe the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that NBC is birth on on a country’s soil to parents who are citizens. And the astonishing thing is these terms are so common-sense and fundamental to each and every society thoughout mankind’s history, and yet those who reject them treat them as if they are irrational and convoluted. There’s nothing more simple and fundamental to citizenship than birth in a society, by the members of that society. In fact it is so fundamental, that we do not even having any law declaring such persons so born to be citizens!

      However i really do appreciate your confidence in me, and faith that I could head off Levin. I myself have no doubt I could make Mark Levin look quite silly while defending that founder’s intent, and even expose a disturbing and consistent distortion of fact on Levin’s part (yes, lying). Thank you for that confidence.

      Like

  13. slcraignbc made the following comment:

    The SCOTUS can be compelled to hear the question by a case that is presented in a manner that draws in all 50 States so long as the LEGAL PREMISE of the nature of a “natural born citizen” of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is based on ACTUAL law and not left to extra-constitutional sources that can not be seen as they affect the attendant circumstances at the time of a child’s birth.

    Once again slcraignbc has shown that he has no grasp whatsoever of the issues, or this country itself. Fundamentally he’s just making things up according to what he things they should be.

    No, the SCOTUS, CANNOT be “compelled” to hear a question involved in a case. The presence of all 50 States is entirely irrelevant!

    SCOTUS does not issue merely advisory opinions. Contrary to the Pavlovian reflex of inured Statists like slcraignbs, the SCOTUS does not have any authority to direct society, nor dictate anything to anyone. What the SCOTUS issues are not “directives” and not not even absolute “decisions”, but rather are only recognized to be “opinions”.

    If SCOTUS were to have the authority to dictate “what the law is”, and pass even mere advisory opinions as if they were sages endowed with wisdom above all other men, then, contrary to slcraignbc’s claim, we would not be under the “rule of law”, but rather the dictatorial rule of men — tyranny. However it is now evident this is precisely what slcraignbc wants.

    Furthermore, slcraignnbc insists that his imaginary SCOTUS dictate must be based on “ACTUAL law and not extra-constitutional sources” … I’ve got news for you, — NBC ix NOT defined anywhere IN LAW and contrary to some ignorant claims, never has been. IN FACT, by very definition, natural born citizen is a term of art from natural law, and is entirely outside of man-made Positive Law, again, by definition. Even in Britain, the terms of this were only changed “by law” (identified even by statutory code) by virtue of the autocratic dictatorial authority of the Crown, and became only artifice, and artificial law of citizenship even there. The U.S. Congress does not have that sort of autocratic authority — which will deeply sadden a Statist like slcraignbc.

    Contrary to slcraignbc indicates, Natural Born Citizen IS ENTIRELY “extra constitutional”, even as recognized by Justice Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, and entirely extra-legal, outside the law, and as a result is not defined BY law.

    However slcraignbc has done a most excellent job establishing himself as the poster child for those who don’t have “a clue”.

    Like

    • SCOTUS can be compelled by the nature and timeliness of a Constitutional Question.

      To say the “presence of all 50 States is entirely irrelevant!” shows your cluelessness given that EVERY State in the Union guarantees an Republican (rule of law) form of government bound by the COTUS with each possessing the RIGHT to Certify a Constitutional Question on Petition to the SCOTUS. The States can be compelled to RESPOND to an Order to Show Cause on the specific issue.

      But to top it off you say …” I’ve got news for you, — NBC ix NOT defined anywhere IN LAW and contrary to some ignorant claims, …” while for 5 years the “definition” of a US natural born Citizen was evident in the 1790 Act by the ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES that produced a child considered as a US natural born Citizen born to the legal wife of a US Citizen father anywhere in the world. (the effects of the provisions in whole prove that FACT with the effect of the 1795 ‘repeal & replace” Act doing no more than limiting where US natural born Citizens could be born thereafter.)

      But that’s over your head, just like Vattel’s narrative of a hypothetical “country & government” far more than you are capable of comprehending, so being able to reconcile ACTUAL LAWS is obviously impossible for you.

      Like

      • slcraignbc,

        No SCOTUS cannot be “compelled”, not either by the nature, nor the timeline, nor by their combined effects, particularly not when the consideration has no justiciability. SCOTUS is not there to pontificate from some throne — they do not provide mere advisory opinions, and can only take cases when the Court can provide a real rememdy to a real issue. Indication of the terms of NBC would be an advisory opinion, and the real issue associated with it would involve a candidate, and the Constitution itself assigns that authority to Congress, and not the Court.

        The weight of compulsion upon SCOTUS is not changed by the effect of “50 States” either. And it is the States themselves that are guaranteed a Republican form of government, not the States guaranteeing it, and still that has no bearing upon SCOTUS being forced to consider any subject matter. Furthermore, that Republican form of government is not the “rule of law”, no matter how much the Pavlovian Progressivist dog inside you wishes it to be so. Republican comes from “res Publica”, or “of the people”, and indicates a representative form of government, quite the contrary of the didactic rule of legal dictate which you falsely promote.

        And your claim that NBC is defined in law by the 1790 Naturalization Act, is a very backdoor and backhanded way to address the very topic, and indeed proof, of this article itself… even while not addressing the concern. No, that 1790 Act did not ever confer natural born citizenship upon anyone born outside the country, not even if their father was a citizen, nor was that act ever intending to do so, That focus of citizenship based on the father’s status is patriarchal philosophy, and it applied to citizenship status under the law, which is what a naturalization act would address. Those founders never intended to alter and expand the terms of natural born citizen… and this article shows compelling proof of this from Madison himself. Likewise the 1795 Naturalization Act dealt only with citizen status under the law, and had no relevance to the static terms of natural born citizenship, and by not manking any mention of that phrase, should not confuse even such small minds as your own.

        “Actual laws” do not have to be reconciled with natural born citizenship, because those actual laws only apply to statutory citizenship — citizenship under the law, or by law, and that is the “attendant circumstances” is of this consideration.

        Like

      • slcraignbc,

        OMG!! SHUT UP, already!! You are now embarrassing yourself, but you are just too hard-headed to SEE that!

        People like you always remind me of this famous quote (the name of the author of which is escaping me at the moment, but just because my memory failing me right now, does NOT mean his/her words are any less relevant!):

        “There is no man so ignorant as the man who believes he has NOTHING left to learn . . .”

        Like

  14. slcraignbc,

    I have never, in all my dealings with the ovomitrons and CRUZIBOTS and RUBIODRONES, read as much RUBBISH as you have posted. You are wrong in virtually EVERYTHING you have said, as it appears your entire “argument” is based on your FALSE beLIEf that “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” mean the SAME thing!

    I’m NOT an attorney, and I don’t claim to be, but I DID score in the 99th Percentile on my college boards in the category of “English,” and I NEVER had a grade LOWER that an “A” in English, Composition, Creative Writing, or in ANY other subject even remotely related to the English language, so I think I speak with SOME authority on this matter when I say this:

    “Nouns” are “persons, places, animals, and things”

    “Adjectives” are words that “describe or modify nouns in a sentence”

    “Modify” means “to change or alter; especially to change in character or form”

    Basic English grammar rules state that when a MODIFYING ADJECTIVE is placed before a NOUN, it “changes” or “alters” the “character or form” of that noun!

    In simpler terms, a noun MODIFIED BY ADJECTIVES no longer means the SAME thing as the noun did when standing alone!

    It should be obvious, then, that a noun modified by TWO adjectives is at least DOUBLY REMOVED from its original meaning!

    Ergo, when the MODIFYING ADJECTIVES “natural” and “born” are placed BEFORE the NOUN “citizen,” the resulting phrase “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” absolutely MUST have a completely different meaning than the word “citizen” standing alone!

    Therefore, as Mr. McCann has repeatedly stated, your basic premise to so terminally FLAWED, that any “arguments” you attempt to “build” atop your terminally FLAWED premise will, by necessity, ALSO be terminally flawed!

    You are not only WRONG about everything you have said, you have also been PROVEN to be wrong by Mr. McCann’s brilliant legal arguments, which are impressive, but you have ALSO been proven WRONG by this simple NON-LAWYER using the basic and immutable rules of English grammar.

    Further, just by the fact I have replied to your ignorance, I have proven you were ALSO wrong when you said:

    “no one else seems to visit your site anyway”

    I may be a simple man, and I may not be a lawyer, but I am DEFINITELY SOMEONE, and I have DEFINITELY visited this site, so you were WRONG when you said no one does, but I will be SURE to avoid YOUR blog, since I have already lost ENOUGH brain cells just slogging through the nonsense you’ve written here!

    I’ll leave you with one last question, that you can choose to answer or not:

    Did it hurt much when your mother repeatedly dropped you on your HEAD when you were an infant?”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s